tv Senator Rubio Confirms Campaign Staff Were Targeted by Russian Hackers CSPAN April 4, 2017 7:31am-9:32am EDT
i think it was something they miscalculated. we must see what other things including the electoral infrastructu infrastructure. >> when he claims no responsibility, no knowledge what so ever and we know and the whole world should know, and we have made it official, how do you -- i mean he seems to have a very high rating in russia.
i don't think they will believe us. do we have the ability to show from the technical aspect what was done? >> i think one of the benefits from his active campaign has had a great impact on his popularity in russia. he has taken us on. thomas brought out all the way back and they said it wasn't them. we knew it was. >> any one of use three have the greatest retaliation for this type of activity? let's start down the light, if you will. what would you recommend? how would we retaliate to make sure we harm them or hurt them to the point they would not continue this type of behavior.
>> that's a tough question. >> economically? >> i believe it was the publication of end of december 29th, the then obama government pointed out -- the administration pointed out rt is a major outlet of russian -- >> again -- >> at this stage rt has a license in the united states. >> so i think we should step back, senator, and say what is our objective with russia? i think we should have -- this is where the administration from secretary of state and secretary of others and give them the opportunity and time to do this and say what's our strategy going to be with russia? i don't think we want to do it
tit for tat. >> how do we get an engagement with russia that puts us in a better place. we know this and we have to figure out how to happen. i think it needs to be done more in private than in publish if we are will have a chance for success. >> it is in our interest to address these problems. >> a lot of comments here. i would caution the response if it's just in cyber space. if all our tools worked against
them and all their tools work against us russia wins. there's not too much with communications relying on it. >> so one main reason is so the american public can understand what happened. this is a fairly complex issue. some people wonder is it the short form faor a robot. americans, many whom i have spoken with feel they may have
been played. >> that goes beyond my expert e expertise. i can say as a layperson everybody has to take everything against multiple sources. i don't have the right tool to determine fake from nonfake news. >> do any of you feel experienced enough to answer that question? >> if it's not new york times or washington post it's not fake news. we have to believe in the center, so to speak. if we can't trust the mainstream immediate you anymore then we have lost. >> can i add to that? >> yes, please. >> we inflame, not inform.
how do we get a more informed set of reports out to the american people? i don't have an answer to that but that's part of the problem. we have to figure out how to address this as we go into the next age of having all of the information available in an instant. you saw the attack on the white house. >> yeah. >> it turned out to be fake news. i think we have got to take a another few steps on that. that's where the social media and governments have to help get the facts out there. >> so tell me, i will start with mr. mania, who whoever can answer this question. how can we tell if bob's manipulates google search and what partnerships might we take with google or any other search engine to avoid it happening in the future? >> i think that's a great
question. i think google probably has the answer. tlgs f there's a lot of ways. it depends on the flat form. it is a complex for him. they keep reply cay kating us. >> and it may be something google and facebook along with other social media and asking the question and how can we jointly solve some of these issues? i think it's a great question and one they would take on. >> social media companies are the market.
russia seems to be investing a great amount in the cyber security as a tool of warfare. what would you recommend we do in terms of the united states government to meet those challenges in terms of how we are investing in infrastructure to combat on the plane of deterren deterrence. >> so i think there are several key points we have to do. one, we have to fix the
relationship between industry and the government so they can be protected. we to set up rules of engagement and they have to understand and agree to those. we have to rehearse that within the government and between government and industry. >> and i only have a few seconds left. i have to direct your response. i appreciate the points you made earlier. we have a budget coming up. what would you advocate in terms that will be before ugs? there's is a lot of discussion about where limited resources dollars and sents, what would you describe to us to immediate these challenges in the terms of the you shall shan government. that they hacked hour systems? >> i think we need to increase the investment of what we have in our cyber capabilities, the
forces and infrastructure and tools. we ned to fed to fix it and loo how we secure it. i think it's something this administration is looking at. we have to figure out the best way to do that. when you do that they don't have the cyber security professionals to defend them. the solution has got to look at what we do with it and how we had it to government. i think it's the key things. >> appreciate that. thank you. >> i think this line of questions we have heard, very briefly, because the chairman hasn't asked his questions yet. but i do wonder, we saw the
example that somebody did hack into files and was showed lots and lots of luxury properties all over the world. in many ways it seemed to result in a series of protests. protesters were arrested, comment on that? very briefly. >> i'm not sure i understand the question. are you implying that -- >> whether the challenge -- i agree with the notion that a simply tit for tat elections in cyber because we are more technologically dependent. there are activities kind of
around -- but suddenly all of the extensive property holdings became public which caused russian series of protests. >> now, we know from publicly available information that putin believes the panama papers leak which broke on 2016. right in the middle of the ramped up targets. targeting on that side ramped up, but we have to assume he was coming. putin seems to believe it was an american act of measure against him. i don't think this was a case but it puts the operation into a slightly different light. it is important to consider
that. >> it is how you have had a way for years to convey to the committee in a way to understand what the threat was, what our capabilities, needed to be, the actions we needed to take, why we needed to take them and the objective of the effort. i think what concerns me is that this thing is speeding so fast now it's like you pulled the string on the top when we were kids. over time the top slowed down and it looks like the top starts spinning faster and faster and
faster once you pulled the string. i want you to understand, we are probably going to invite you back in an informal setting where some of the things we got into today, we couldn't dig much deeper. thank you for showing the con strant. i will not include you in mier two questions because i might president you on the spot. do we have any idea how russia transmitted e-mails to wikileaks and if that's the process that everybody assumes happened then how could wikileaks be referred to as you referred to,
unwhiting? >> is wikileaks an unwhigt agent? in truth we can't answer the question because they haven't spoken on it. we also can't assume they are not. ultimately they are veryfective. >> kevin -- do eye the forensics that you're able to have done that wiki leaks can hold we mace. >> i wpt can't tell you that.
it is probably under 1 to what we attribute to the russian government of stealing. >> we are trying to come up to speed not just on terminology but what that terminology means. i would like to give us an opportunity to describe -- >> yes. for the first time ever we tarted getting better software. i think most do not do kmond line execution. and then it's the malware, the infrastructure to attack, the people they target, the pass
phrases they use and the list goes on and on. we asked how do you categorize the evidence, the forensics from an intrusion investigation. so you observe a group for ten years or more. we got the bucket right. it is a bucket. every time we respond to them there's enough criteria together that it is our abt 28 i'll give one last example. when you look at the malware, 98% or higher is compiled during
business hours. it is a pretty big clue. whoever is doing it speeshs russi russian. >> who done doesn't kans this, pun it and do it. >> yes. >> had they approved fbi to do forren ticks on? wouldn't we have gotten more information? >> i don't know. i can want speekt the last wunl they are not the ones traditionally doing forensics. we are producing it. customers are choosing -- our clients are choosing to share it with the fbi.
but there's been numerous cases where we are showing up. we know maybe three things to look for. the fbi says here is another 80. they will look for those as well. i have been doing this 20 years. it is more likely than not when we respond to an intrusion the fbi is actually there and responding to us. >> so i sort of leave this hearing not hearing a word, that's docks. my understanding is it's the 21st century for steal and leak. am i going to hear docks a lot in the future? >> it is an irritatining word, t
yes, you will use it. i can tell you the it's across the red line with detectiviveties. you would make a so-dowell-- th images. on the observation, yes, just to make another observation that may be personal for many of you here in this room, but the ethic rules in congress may actually make members of congress and in this senate more vulnerable.
it forces you to use different devices. some times as many as different desiess. so even if the main is actually secured properly it would push you down to into a more vulnerable question. >> one last general stamt. you blacked up and i think you report it adds well. our response has to be well taught tlau. it's that with do as we seize get but you can't neglect the fact that russia has done things outside of signer, invasion of
you ra. >> presence this syria. >> me we may say, boy, they miscalculated. the only way they miscalculated is to have taken our neglect of reaction to what they did. not being critical, but we have done nothing to russia when they have made aggressive moves. and now all of a sudden this happened at home. it happened with elections. when you look at it from a stand point of impact i think they would tell me bhapd to them is much wore. if it happened in the united states we would think it is much worse. but the fact is that the -- the
global is just as exposed as the united states. i was our election in 2016. it is the french, germans. i won't get into the long list of them. we are within 30 days -- we are within 30 days of what is a primary election in france. it would be that the shush it is enough to smak you are and a socialist make the runoff they end up with a pro russian government in france. they won. that was their intend. i feel certain. we are not sure what the effects will be in germany. we have actually see them build up a party in germany and exploit things that were fake
it is certainly not one individual. we can literally see some type of human play. some are formal and some are unformal. with evidence in the written testimony hacked 12 that were leaked on d.c. leaks. it provided a password that was not publicly known, provided a password to the smoking gun, the outlet. that's a very strong forensic link. the dots can be connected. >> but how about the second part
of my question? is it a part of the russian government in some part of form. >> it could be a subcontra subcontractor -- >> affiliated with the russian government. >> i'm confident the answer is yes. >> thank you. >> i thank all of the members and i thank our panel today. you have provided us incredible incite and knowledge. we are grateful to to you. this hearing is adjourned.
and another hearing. this one also dealing with russia. live starting with head of u.s. strategic command before the senate armed services committee talki talking russian use of long-range missiles and also what the u.s. approach should be to north korea's nuclear capability. this is john heighten. he is the commander of one of the nine unified.